Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#31

Post by moheeb »

scarmig wrote: post #30
crusso wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word It's telling that you twisted what I said in that way. I don't take her word any more than I take Mann's word. I read a variety of sources and try to reason about them to create my own world view. Since I don't have an oil well in my backyard, I don't really have a dog in the fight besides my general interest in the "success" of our society. I really don't spend enough brain…

"Bullshit politics" "crap" Keep it civil. You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community; and even if you gave them equal billing, that'd be inappropriate, simply because she's significantly outnumbered. And her skepticism is always expressed in political forums, never scientific ones, which further takes away from how much scientific credibility she has, at least when it comes to…

""crap"" is pretty civil. I pick up my dog's every day just to keep our neighborhood civil.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#32

Post by onetwofiveten »

crazy1van wrote: post #5

This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument. Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others will never be convinced it isn't. The rest of the people don't care.

That's a pretty strange assertion to make. This is a scientific issue. It will be resolved one way or another by observations of reality. Most people care about it. It's not really a religious argument at all.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#33

Post by gd1 »

acqq wrote: post #26
gd1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Through skepticism. What you're doing there is faith.

No, through the better scientific work. Without it, it's just trolling. Better scientific work isn't produced by deniers simply because they aren't actually interested in the science. Just like in the article. Please read the article. Have you?

Your link wasn't there when I posted was it?

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#35

Post by ilitirit »

crazy1van wrote: post #5

This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument. Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others will never be convinced it isn't. The rest of the people don't care.

To an extent, I agree. I'm past the point of caring about who or what is to blame. I'm more interested in whether or not we are sufficiently prepared for a drastic change in climate (whether it be hot or cold).

And more than that, I'm far more concerned about the state of our oceans. Particularly because of a lack of knowledge about it's current state, where it's headed, and what it means for us.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#36

Post by onetwofiveten »

gretful wrote: post #6
npsimons wrote: post #2

I'm glad to see this finally being acknowledged and the funding behind these attacks being called out. In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to rising sea levels and all the upheaval caused thereby, will we finally look back (as we did with smoking propaganda) and realize what influence malicious greed can effect over ignorance?

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

If you consider "global cooling" and "global warming" to be similar phenomenon within the scientific community, then you really are very badly misinformed. This is ironic since you accuse others of "accepting everything printed". I think maybe you're the one with a poor sense of credibility.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#37

Post by seehafer »

acqq wrote: post #13
crazy1van wrote: post #5

This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument. Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others will never be convinced it isn't. The rest of the people don't care.

It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the…

I'm not unsympathetic to the exasperation of scientists concerning that their work is being dismissed by people who don't have the expertise to evaluate it, but all this talk about a "consensus" is where they shoot themselves in the foot. Science doesn't advance by "consensus". And using that as the defense is just a different type of faith (faith in the omniscience of the group).

Prior to the 80's the 'consensus' was that stomach ulcers are caused by stress and spicy foods. Two lone Australian medical researchers thought a bacterium was the causal agent, and so one of them actually swallowed a petri dish to prove his point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#38

Post by crusso »

scarmig wrote: post #30
crusso wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word It's telling that you twisted what I said in that way. I don't take her word any more than I take Mann's word. I read a variety of sources and try to reason about them to create my own world view. Since I don't have an oil well in my backyard, I don't really have a dog in the fight besides my general interest in the "success" of our society. I really don't spend enough brain…

"Bullshit politics" "crap" Keep it civil. You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community; and even if you gave them equal billing, that'd be inappropriate, simply because she's significantly outnumbered. And her skepticism is always expressed in political forums, never scientific ones, which further takes away from how much scientific credibility she has, at least when it comes to…

Keep it civil.

Seems like you're trying to augment your argument by asserting some sort of language dominance. Do you find that helps with other people?

You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community

Her work? Partially. I prefer her calm approach to Science that demands evidence and remains skeptical vs the all-too-often politically-driven one I see at the IPCC. That said, I read realclimate about as often as I read Curry's blog.

she's significantly outnumbered

Yeah, I'm significantly outnumbered by Miley Cyrus fans too. What of it?

crusso is an expert at saying climate scientists are evil

At the end of the day, we can't all understand everything. Lacking models that reflect reality, this is all just guesswork - so I'd prefer to rely on my understanding of what makes good Science.

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#39

Post by BrandonMarc »

scarmig wrote: post #7
gretful wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

So you're saying that climate scientists are motivated by greed and stupidity? And if you've been involved in climate debates before, you know full well that an article in Newsweek does not mean global cooling was widely accepted among climatologists. It was not.

There's always this adage: "No problem, no funding."

Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science

#40

Post by MaysonL »

crusso wrote: post #10
adwhit wrote: post #4

The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years. Climate change is quite possibly the one and only story of the 21st century. What could be more deserving of our attention? And yet I've noticed that such news stories get a rather cool reception on HN, possibly because it doesn't fit the Whiggish philosophy that te…

The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years The best climate science is still crap. We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural…

Screw the models, look at the data. Especially the biological and physical data: plant and animal species ranges, bird migration patterns, permafrost melting. All point toward warming.
Post reply on HN